At least one Arizona state senator thinks that an obscure provision in the state constitution could entitle recalled state Senate President (R) to money from the state.

State Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise) said that his reading of Article 8, Part 1, Section 6 of the state constitution would allow Pearce to ask the state to reimburse the cost of his unsuccessful campaign to fight being recalled from office this week.

According to records on the Arizona secretary of state’s office website, Pearce raised $230,282 for the recall campaign and spent $159,587. Pearce, the architect of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, lost the recall election in his Maricopa County district to fellow Republican Jerry Lewis.

Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elections in so far as applicable­. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer.

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]112th CONGRESS 1st SessionH. J. RES. 78 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations._______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 12, 2011 Ms. Edwards (for herself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary_______________________________________________________________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: ``Article-- ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. ``Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.''. <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

This is similar to my second proposed amendment in that it works to deny Constitutional protection to corporate political spending. This is probably the least disruptive method from a legal standpoint, but it retains the “regulating the hand that feeds” conflict of interest problem.

It does not include organized religion, which should not be engaging in political campaigns but do anyway.

To be fair, it does not include unions either. On the other hand, unions are associations of actual people, not “artificial persons”. They do not pose the same threat to our sovereignty as corporations. Perhaps someday an adjustment will need to be made, but that becomes a slippery slope problem.

Section 2:

The freedom of the press must be maintained, though the corporate media undermines the Fourth Estate through the corrupt use of ownership powers.

Related Bills:

Conclusion

This is a simple and straightforward answer to Citizens United. Without a mandate, I think that there would be many partisan battles over regulation. Especially when one party confuses corporations with living people.

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][S.J. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]112th CONGRESS 1st SessionS. J. RES. 29 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections._______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES November 1, 2011 Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Begich, and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary_______________________________________________________________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress: ``Article-- ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on-- ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. ``Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on-- ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''. <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

I see three problems with this section:

It does not cover issues. While issues are not directly on the ballot, they are still an integral part of a political campaign.

It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.

The politicians setting the regulations, without direction or mandate, are the ones who benefit from the current state of campaign financing. This leaves plenty of room for continued influence peddling.

Section 2:

There are similar problems with this section:

It does not cover issues.

It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.

It does not cover referenda.

It does not cover local elections.

It does not cover other Questions put to the voters, such as millage.

It does not cover cross-state interference in local politics. The sovereignty of the individual states is being challenged by out-of-state money.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

None given (yet), but Article V of the Constitution covers it.

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when

ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Provided

that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

About

Like most people, I spent the first part of my life focused on education, building a career, and building a life. It left little time to pay close attention to politics. But with the turn of the decade, the turn of the century, the turn of the millennium, I saw evidence of a change in the country so radical that I could no longer ignore it. It is time for the silent majority to be silent no more, and this is my contribution to our future as a nation.